It’s hard not to be troubled by a quiet ruling from the Bush administration qualifying the Clinton administration’s clear removal of sexual orientation as a barrier to security clearance. Money quote from the AP:
"The [Clinton administration] regulation stated that sexual orientation ‘may not be used as a basis for or a disqualifying factor in determining a person’s eligibility for a security clearance.’
Bush removed that categorical protection, saying instead that security clearances cannot be denied ‘solely on the basis of the sexual orientation of the individual.’
The new rules say behavior that is ‘strictly private, consensual and discreet’ could ‘mitigate security concerns.’"
Scott McClellan says nothing has changed, but he doesn’t seem to know what’s in the new regulation and his argument doesn’t add up on its face. Money quote:
"McCLELLAN: There’s no change in our policy. The language that you’re referring to reflects what is in that executive order.
Q So why take it out if there’s no change in policy?
McCLELLAN: I don’t think they took out language. I think that they updated the language to reflect exactly what was spelled out in the executive order. There’s no change in the policy.
Q But they took this language out. This is gone. It doesn’t say that anymore.
McCLELLAN: I don’t know what language you’re specifically referring to, because I think the language is very similar to what it says in the executive order and the policy remains the same."
My hope is that this language change is mere bureaucratic tinkering; or has some benign explanation. But my fear is that some within the administration made this change and did it for a reason. The new rules seem to qualify what was once a clear renunciation of sexual orientation being in any way an issue for security clearance. The protection now seems to refer to "strictly private, consensual and discreet" gayness. Could that mean that if you’re out of the closet, the government may discriminate against you in security clearances? If so, it’s bizarre logic. The only gay men and women who might have problems are precisely the closeted ones: they’re the only ones conceivably subject to some kind of blackmail; whereas openly gay people have nothing to fear and nothing to hide. So the change seems to serve no rational purpose, except, perhaps, to intimidate gay people in government service into being closeted. And the Bush people would never do something like that, now, would they?
The Dish 